CZ:Proposals/Recipes Subpage and Accompanying Usage Policy

This proposal has been assigned on an ad hoc basis to the person or persons named just below, and is now in the Ad hoc proposals queue

This proposal will be approvable, with one caveat, by the contributors to this page, when the driver deems it ready to call for approval. If there is a controversy, and you contribute to this page, then you have a "vote." The caveat is that the final proposal must be posted to cz-editcouncil by an editor (feel free to send it to me when you're ready --LMS), so that the Council has a chance to review it and opt to vote on it (not likely). --Larry Sanger (Proposals Manager pro tempore)

Driver: Supten Sarbadhikari

Complete explanation

A new subpages option will be added to the subages template and an accompanying content policy will govern its usages, described on CZ:Recipes.

Reasoning

Culinary articles need a few illustrative recipes.

Implementation

• Code will be added to the subpages template, and no one need worry about who will do that step.
• A recipe subpages policy will be written by an ad hoc group (whoever wants to do it). That content policy, CZ:Recipes, should be added to this page as soon as possible, as it will complete this proposal.

Discussion

Various people discussed this in various talk spaces, including most recently, the talk pages of Bolognese sauce and CZ Talk: Food Science Workgroup# Recipes/Receipts but nothing concrete appears to have come of those discussions.

---

I'd be glad to participate if I had the foggiest notion of what was going on. Ah well, I'll start anyway.

Some issues

1. Options: well, we could have a recipe tab as a subpage, or we could start separate CZ how-to workbooks. I see no reason for the latter, since we have clusters, and think a recipe tab system would work well.
2. It would make sense for there to be a catalogue of recipes somewhere. One could browse the catalogue for a list of things to make for dinner, or go right to the cluster if you knew e.g. you were looking for a recipe for ragu. Not that I think CZ would be the first stop for recipes.
3. Somewhere, someone (I think Hayford wrote that recipes should not be editable by just anyone. I think this is a valid point. Drive-by editing can just ruin a good recipe, and significantly alter an authentic one. I think this should be given consideration.

Aleta Curry 15:18, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Proposer remarks

Geez, now do I have rewrite this whole thing again?! This is baffling!

Anyway, my question is very simple: what are we going to do about the recipes that I am inserting into various articles? Make them subpages? Classify them in some index somewhere? Start a new tab for "Recipes" at the top of pages on which that would be a useful feature. Index them somehow at some central repository? Catalog them? List them?

The point is that they should be easily accessible, and easily findable. We're not quite yet at the point where we can offer competition to the Larousse Gastronomique, but on the other hand, the recipes I've put in are a *lot* more practical and easy to follow than anything you're ever going to find in the Larousse except, maybe, a boiled egg....Hayford Peirce 19:20, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Sorry you found the system baffling. Obviously, you don't have to rewrite the summary on the proposal page. The proposal page is supposed to detail the issue as you wish to raise it. For further instructions, see CZ:Proposals/Policy, where it's explained.

You've asked a question, but you didn't formulate it as an issue, i.e., as a decision among two or more options; but you didn't detail any options. Are you expecting someone else to lay out some specific options? But why not you? The system is designed as a venue where you can say, "Here are the options and I think we must pick one," or "Here is how to do something that must be done." If you don't want to spell out the issue in detail, well, maybe someone else will for you... --Larry Sanger 20:56, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Experimenting

I'd like to test the system by acting as a driver. Supten Sarbadhikari 21:51, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Please do, because I'm completely at sea here! Hayford Peirce 10:13, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks, Supten! The first think to do is to read through CZ:Proposals/Policy and, if you have any questions, particularly if anything is poorly explained (or unexplained), won't you please let me know? I am not quite finished with it, but I'm close. One thing I haven't done is explained what the Proposals Manager does, and when. I'll be adding a section about that soon. --Larry Sanger 22:44, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Pointers

Supten asked for some pointers on where to go next in driving this proposal forward. It's tolerably clear from CZ:Proposals/Policy (especially this section and those following) that a proposal needs to be developed to a certain point before it is acceptable. It should be developed well enough, in any case, to be actionable. What's that mean, in this case? Well, despite the fact that we have many subpage types that are not well described (but then, most undescribed types have not been well used), I think we should at least require of new subpage types (if in fact we are going to have a new subpage type for recipes) that we have a complete draft of a policy page.

Right now, the proposal page merely raises a question (how and under what rules should we host recipes on CZ?) without giving any well-developed answers. Perhaps I shouldn't have taken this off of the new proposals page until the proposal were better developed, but my assumption was that one of the next steps (along with discussion) would be that at least one option would be well developed.

At any rate, if no one is interested in developing CZ:Recipes, or in other respects spelling out the proposal clearly, we should probably file this one under CZ:Proposals/Driverless. Still, if someone (like Hayford) is willing to take a stab at articulating policy for this sort of page, then he or she should be made a co-driver. Then, Supten, as driver, you would simply ask Hayford (or Aleta, or whomever) to write CZ:Recipes. Or, Supten, if you're willing to flesh out the page yourself, do so. Note that there are certain set sections of policy pages about subpage types. See CZ:Subpages#How to add subpage types.

If you're looking for my opinion, which on something like this I offer as merely an opinion, I would say that it makes good sense to make a new subpage type for recipes, but I lack the time and expertise to tackle this myself. --Larry Sanger 07:01, 19 February 2008 (CST)

I've gone over this page again, and from what Larry *seems* to be saying, someone should first of all create a new article called Recipe (or Recipes possibly). I can easily do that. It won't say much, but it *will* exist. Then Larry seems to be saying that someone should *probably* create a subpage tab called "Recipes", to be put in at the top of pertinent pages along with the other tabs such as Edit, Discussion, External Links, Etc. I, for one, definitely agree with that suggestion. I would do it myself, instantly, *except I don't know how*! If I don't have to be a programmer to do it, and someone will *tell* me how, I will, after the proposal has been approved, do it. On the other hand, if it takes 2 hours to explain to me how to do it, and 3 minutes for the explainer to do it himself/herself, then I suggest the latter course.... Hayford Peirce 09:24, 19 February 2008 (CST)

I should make more definite recommendations, eh, Hayford?  ;-) OK. You do not need to worry about making a subpage tab for recipes. Someone else will do that. Writing recipe is also not necessary. All I'm saying is that CZ:Recipes should be made (and filled in with sensible policy recommendations) by someone. If you, then you could be added as a proposal co-drivers. --Larry Sanger 10:24, 19 February 2008 (CST)

You lost me. Is CZ:Recipes a category? I thought we weren't supposed to go around creating categories. Is it just a page that needs beginning? Heck, Hayford and I can do that. Aleta Curry 14:50, 19 February 2008 (CST)

No, categories are preceded by Category: . This is a page to be linked from CZ:Subpages (once a specific proposal is made and accepted). --Larry Sanger 14:52, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Hi Aleta--well done! See CZ:Subpages#How to add subpage types please! --Larry Sanger 14:58, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Yowzers. Can we wipe this and start over with a clean slate and clear proposal? I've listened to folks on this proposal idea and can make one. Stephen Ewen 15:12, 19 February 2008 (CST)

See CZ:Proposals/Recipes Subpage and Accompanying Usage Policy‎ for the fresh start. Stephen Ewen 15:46, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Steve, in the interests of not stepping on toes, let's get a reply from the current driver(s). Aleta has agreed to join in with Supten, it looks like, to me. I would interpret your proposal as a suggestion that you take over as driver and that this proposal be redirected. I would say that that is up to the current drivers. --Larry Sanger 15:51, 19 February 2008 (CST)

It is a suggestion, as I was just coming here to say, and I really don't wanna be driver. But this page is just a mess, so if the clean slate page over there is useful, move on over to it, if not, no problemo at'all. Just trying to see a need and serve! Stephen Ewen 15:56, 19 February 2008 (CST)

OK, no problem. I redirected the old proposal here (because I did not spot much of an issue, but only a proposal, and so no need for a question), and merged the text, basically because your edits were mostly clarificatory and sensible. One point of order: you stated how the proposal should be adopted in the implementation section, Steve; well, that's up to the Proposals Manager (i.e., moi) and was already stated at the top of the proposal. Also, the proposal already has a driver, namely Supten, although I have been doing his job by using your edits, Steve.

Supten, what I would suggest you do is give up the driver's seat to Steve or Aleta, since they're jumping on it, and you're not!  :-) Less work for you, right? --Larry Sanger 16:35, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Aw, look, I'd rather not drive. I'm supposed to be following up on other stuff, like approvals, and we still don't have a driver for Internationalisation. Besides, I still don't know what's going on, really. Aleta Curry 16:58, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Me drive? I don't know, this road's got an awful lot of stuff laying about... :-) Stephen Ewen 17:18, 19 February 2008 (CST)

The Driving issue

As per the Policy, the Proposals Manager (Larry) can co-opt n number of Co-drivers or even replace the original driver. My personal opinion is that I'd like to have Hayford as a Co-driver (in any case he IS the original proposer). Both Aleta and Steve are too busy to act as drivers. Certainly both of them can act as Navigators. I'd come back to this page in about another six hours or so and make further comments. Supten Sarbadhikari 20:59, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Hmm, but I am doubting that Hayford is up to reading the rules that drivers are supposed to read. He'd be welcome to join you if he's willing, though. Let's just keep you on, and let you take credit for other people's work!  ;-) --Larry Sanger 21:18, 19 February 2008 (CST)

A keen insight into another person's character from a distance, Larry! Hayford is the original scofflaw -- and, I gotta say, reading an awful of what goes on in the various Proposal forums to me is like looking at one of my books published in Russian -- it's just incomprehensible to me even though I know it makes sense to other people. Sorry, but that's the way my brain works, or, rather, doesn't work.... I'll certainly be happy to work *with* other people, as far as I can, within this and other projects, but I know I'm not equipped to act as a driver or co-driver in any of this....Hayford Peirce 21:48, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Well, I just inferred from the fact that you thought the original CZ:Proposals page was practically intolerable that you'd never be up to reading CZ:Proposals/Policy.  ;-) No very keen insight there. --Larry Sanger 22:16, 19 February 2008 (CST)

[Smilingly taps fingernails in a row across the table]. Looks like the driver's manual is also gonna need some condensin'. :-) Stephen Ewen 22:18, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Steve, why don't you propose (and drive) another proposal on Driving proposals? Supten Sarbadhikari 22:55, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Sure, but let's first write a proposal for that proposal about propsals, eh? [Kidding!!] Stephen Ewen 14:54, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Template:Nutrition

I carved up this little doodaddy Sunday night, but it needs more technical logic stuff that I didn't put in. There's a reference document on the template page that I linked to which makes it look pretty close to the real label. There's stuffs missing also, and it needs tweaking, but it's a start, if you're interested in using it. Basically you just copy the numbers down from the label and put 'em in the template. --Robert W King 19:24, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Looks pretty useful! Supten Sarbadhikari 21:31, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Could it maybe have colours or something so it looks less stark? Anyway, for something like eggnog, I'll forgo all the details and just put "lethal". Aleta Curry 00:26, 26 February 2008 (CST)

While the template itself is very well-done, I greatly dislike this direction - again toward Good Housekeeping magazine rather than a scholarly culinary publication. I believe CZ needs to be taking this kind of direction. Besides, data contained in this U.S. government mandated template on foodstuffs in the U.S. must be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unless CZ is prepared to do the scientific studies and submit entires to the USDA, it is a non-starter for us to use it. The only usage of it may be where the data has already been published, and in this, WP does give some reasonable usages. Stephen Ewen 01:18, 26 February 2008 (CST)

How is including nutrional information not scholarly? It's scientific, at least, and it's practically labelled (probably considered, "published") on everything that's edible and packaged in the US! It's not like it's original research. --Robert W King 11:08, 26 February 2008 (CST)

No recipes I am aware of go through the process for this labeling. Prepackaged (example) or mass-made (example) products made under controlled conditions do, which seems how the template could be useful. Stephen Ewen 16:38, 26 February 2008 (CST)

I can't think of the sources offhand, but I *have* seen recipes in some newpaper food sections and some food magazines in which a *lot* of nutrition info is given; certainly how many calories per serving, then probably fat content per serving, etc. etc. Not as detailed as the template, or what you see on the side of a commercial loaf of bread, but a fair amount. Since I myself ignore all that baloney, I pay no attention to it in recipes. Unless we're reproducing *very* modern recipes from sources such as that, I don't see how it would be practical to put in this info in our own recipes. Hayford Peirce 19:05, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Well, for my part, I don't have an objection to the template as such, on Good Housekeeping grounds or otherwise. I wonder, though, if it's likely to be used right away. I am unlikely to try to work out the fat/fibre/kcal in anything I cook well enough to write a recipe for.

I wonder, Robert, if you could start us instead with the infobox concept? Ingredients, equipment, prep time, cooking time, how many does it feed? We could maybe have a simplified section on nutrition in the infobox: this contains spinach which has vitamins A and C and cheese which has vitamin D and tastes really good. Some such. Hayford and I would probably use something like that, and it would be (fairly?) easy for others to add to/correct it.

Aleta Curry 20:38, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Tell me what it should contain and I'll make it. --Robert W King 11:01, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Next steps?

Supten asked me what the next steps for this proposal should be. As I see it, for this sort of proposal, there are at least two natural steps before it can be considered "ready to go." First, the proposal itself needs to be fully developed. Is it, in your opinion, Supten? Second, once it is fully developed (in Supten's opinion), it needs to given some general evaluation by "the stakeholders," i.e., people who are following this page and who might be inclined to make recipes subpages. In particular, they need to say whether they think it's ready to go. If not, then we should take care of whatever their concerns are. I'd like to have a chance to evaluate the proposal myself, once it is complete in your opinion, Supten, so please let me know.

Supten, I'll leave it to you to update the "next step" and date...thanks. --Larry Sanger 13:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Hayford, Aleta and Steve, please comment thoughtfully. Supten Sarbadhikari 23:31, 27 February 2008 (CST)

That this subpage should exist is obvious, as I've said all along. It was really just an oversight that it did not get "canonized" when subpages were created. I see no reason why the basic idea of it can't just get the okay and the details collaboratively worked out over time as interested people have time and interest. If problems arise, then they can be brought up appropriately. Surely we don't want to stifle creativity and progress just because all the details of something are not worked out and set in cast ahead of time. Things usually don't work well that way, anyway. Stephen Ewen 02:39, 28 February 2008 (CST)

I'm so confused by this whole business that I don't even know what I'm supposed to doing. If Steve thinks that it's fine, then it is. This whole Proposals within Proposals business is *way* over my head -- sorry for being stupid.... Hayford Peirce 11:49, 28 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, like Hayford, I'm getting confused. I don't exactly remember where we are--this doesn't even look like the same proposals page.

We need a certain amount of learning by doing/learning by erring. I think Steve has a point: let's start and let policy evolve as we go. We can always ask one another questions/make suggestions as we go.

Some things do need to be decided, though, like, how so we restrict editing of recipes to avoid drive-by ruining?

Can we start even if we haven't agreed on all the styling/formatting? I say yes.

Where is the LIST OF ALL CZ RECIPES going to live? We'll need one. Especially if we justdoit, we will need to know where all the recipes are so we can organise them according to however we're going to organise them once/if we ever get organised.

Aleta Curry 20:53, 29 February 2008 (CST)

I'm simpleminded, so I tend to think of doing things in a simple way. How about this: We (I, you, anyone) create an article called, get this!: Recipes (I checked -- it doesn't yet exist). The lede paragraph will read: "For both your eating and intellectual pleasure, CZ is gonna feature a number of recipes. It may or may not become *very* comprehensive. In the meantime, here is an alphabetical list of recipes currently available." Then, underneath that, using the * thingee to indent, we JUST START LISTING THE THINGS! And, as I proposed earlier, we give lots of references and (see so-and-so) and redirects so that even the meanest intellect will eventually be able to find whatever he/she is looking for, even if we have to list 7 different names for the same dish. How's that? Hayford Peirce 21:02, 29 February 2008 (CST)

"(I, you, anyone) create an article called, get this!: Recipes" Hahahahahahah--trying not to drop pieces of Croque Monsieur out of my mouth as I type while chortling.

Sounds good, Hayford, except shouldn't the asterisk/bulleted list thingy be on a subpage of Recipes rather than it's main page? (Not trying to be funny.)

Aleta Curry 22:03, 29 February 2008 (CST)

No, I think all that stuff should be at Recipes -- why do we want people to go to a subpage when they're looking for a particular recipe? However, if we *did* create a subpage, what would it be called and where would it be? And how to do *know* people would actually *go* there? I think we should hit them, metaphorically speaking, with a direct pie in the face! Hayford Peirce 11:41, 3 March 2008 (CST)

I agree that CZ:Recipes need not be exhaustively detailed. But what questions must it answer? --Larry Sanger 22:24, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Suggestion One

Okay, this is best I can come up with after a night of refreshing sleep - I don't think my brain will get any clearer or smarter than it is now. I propose that we do this:

1. We start an article called CZ Recipes or CZ:Recipes or Citizendium Recipes but the first two are shorter. Oh, okay, that second one already exists and is where we were BOTH listing all of the possible things to put into it AND we were discussing what to do next.

Wait a minute. I think you're missing something in terms of CZ-way-things-are-set-up comprehension. To the best of my knowledge, CZ:Recipes is not an article. It is the rules page for the CZ Recipe subpage. Soooo, when it's finished, it will get all sorts of templates added to the bottom of it and go into the boxes that appear on the bottom of some superspecial pages, together with CZ:Catalogs and CZ:Debate Guide. So, I don't think our super-razoo dewey decimal cross-referenced super catalogue should live there. See your next numbered point. Aleta Curry 22:55, 1 March 2008

(CST)

Great, we're making *serious* progress here! Now I know what this CZ:Recipes business is about -- just a place to talk.

1. We start an article called Recipes. It will be nothing but a Redirect to CZ:Recipes.

I think the recipe article should be about what a recipe is, like any other article. Maybe Hayford's super cross-referenced thingymibob goes here, on the Recipes/Catalogs page? Or is that Recipes/Related articles? I've given up trying to understand that bit. Aleta Curry 22:55, 1 March 2008 (CST)

More progress! Okay, the *key* thing is to create an article called Recipes. Then, unless we're just a dictionary, here to define a word called "Recipe", we actually bite the bullet AND start listing recipes!!!! I'm adamant about this: I don't see what else we can do, short of going the WP route and creating a whole new, completely separate wiki called CZCookBook or some such. Not for me, thank you.

• Here is what I propose: I myself will bite the bullet and create an article called User:Hayford Peirce/Recipes. In *that* article I will start carrying out what I have proposed here and in other places. And let's see how that goes and what it looks like. It will have its own discussion page, of course, so that we can then argue back and forth at that site where we're going wrong or what we're doing right. It's been a while since I thought of one of the favorite songs of my youth, Eliza Doolittle singing, "Words, words, words, words! That's all you blighters can do!" I'm tired of them....

1. The present lede for CZ:Recipes is "A recipe is a set of instructions for creating something, usually for cooking food." To that sentence we add something like the following: "See further down in this article for an index of actual recipes, as well as other information pertinent to cooking and to implementing recipes."

Okay, this response is not about recipes. It's about how much I hate 'lede' being used when the entire rest of the civilised world writes 'lead'. Which is the same word for the dog chain and for Pb. It's English. Deal. /soapbox.

Aleta Curry 22:55, 1 March 2008 (CST)

Yeah, I dislike "lede" also, but sometimes I just it just to make sure that we know *absolutely* what we're talking about. And, I note, the Good Grey Eminence, the NYT uses the word, so it *must* be OK, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 10:44, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Well, I've long since decided never to use "lede," which seems to me both pretentious and, as far as I was able to determine, incorrectly used outside the context of journalism... Not that I really care that much! --Larry Sanger 22:18, 2 March 2008 (CST)

1. We then list all (or most) of the info in the lists such as Broad Categories, Ethnic, Etc. Etc., expanding them as new articles become available.
2. BUT At the very end of all these lists (or at the very top, we can argue about this), we begin an incredibly detailed cross-referenced index of recipes. For instance, we would have, for just this single item:

Alsatian flamecake (see Flamecake)

Flamecake

Flammekueche (see Flamecake)

Flammkuchen (see Flamecake)

Tarte flambée (see Flamecake)

• This is only an example, in alphabetical order, for this one item -- in the master index there would be Aardvark tongues ahead of Alsatian flamecake, and half a dozen variations beginning with B about Beef bouguignon between "Alsatian flamecake" and "Flamecake"

To this master list we would only add:

• Names of recipes for which articles actually exist in CZ, such as Bolognese sauce
• Names of articles that already exist in CZ such as Hamburger or Vitello tonnato, including drinks such as Mai tai and Zombie -- the assumption here is that if an article already exists, eventually one or more recipes will be added to it.

• Got no problem with the index (except perhaps that it will be completed at about the same time they finish the Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine). I don't know that we should put the index here, for the reason I give above.Aleta Curry 22:55, 1 March 2008 (CST)

That's about all I can think of at the moment. If others agree with this general outline, please either flesh it out, or make proposals and we'll go from there. But I DO think that we ought to get underway on this, even in a version that may latter need to be modified before we all get so bored TALKING about it that we end up never doing anything! Hayford Peirce 11:05, 1 March 2008 (CST)

Where is another discussion of this recipe business?

I distinctly remember several days ago *another* discussion in which I made some suggestions how we could *list* categories and/or recipes, and I used the * thingee to give some examples. Where the devil is *that* article/discussion/proposal/proposal-within-a-Proposal or whatever it was? Hayford Peirce 21:10, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Oh, heck, I don't know! Is that the same page on which you said that we shouldn't have it just editable by just anyone? And I think Supten wrote some guidelines there as well. I have to find this.... Aleta Curry 22:03, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, is THIS the page? or is THAT the page? (Not fer nuttin' but who put "Vegan" on the recipe list???? Is that actually cuisine???) Aleta Curry 22:13, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Okie, BOTH are the pages I had in mind -- geez, trying to carry on a conversation in three different places!? Hayford Peirce 10:28, 1 March 2008 (CST)

Aleta, I had included vegan as a class since some of the web glossaries: [1], [2], [3] classify likewise. I have made a redirect from recipes to recipe and there have pointed towards CZ:Recipes. With the navigational help from all of you, especially Hayford, Steve and Aleta, I'd now test drive the proposal - to crash? Supten Sarbadhikari 22:09, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Oh, I'm just *teasing*, making bad jokes. Test drive away, Supten! I think we're doing very well, since by my count there are now four different recipe places...we have four, do I hear 'five'? (standing by on footpath with bandages in case of crashes. Come to think of it, this may not be such an intelligent place to stand.... Aleta Curry 23:10, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Concrete Steps Ahead

To make this proposal a formal one, we may (by Thursday March 06):-

1. Develop the page recipe in a better way.
2. Freeze the CZ:Recipes page for the time being.
3. Once Hayford, Aleta and Steve concur that the above two are acceptable, we seek the opinion of Larry and Jitse - the first official Proposals System Manager - to comment further.

Supten Sarbadhikari 22:20, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Sounds fine to me. Just to remind everyone, I'm about to go into write-a-thon mode, so between that and my real life, I'll be a bit busy. Aleta Curry 23:16, 2 March 2008 (CST)

It doesn't seem necessary to me to write the encyclopaedia article recipe. The important bit is the CZ:Recipes page, which should detail our policies on Recipe subpages. As far as I'm concerned, you can send the proposal to the Editorial Council once you all are happy with CZ:Recipes. I would suggest that you make an example page to focus the minds, for example on Bolognese sauce/Recipes, but that's up to you. -- Jitse Niesen 05:27, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Thanks Jitse. Once Hayford and Steve give their comments, we shall complete all formalities. Supten Sarbadhikari 05:40, 3 March 2008 (CST)

• I think Jitse didn't realize that the Recipe article had already been started by Aleta. As far as I'm concerned, we have now finished talking and are about to start working. I will, today or tomorrow, follow Jitse's advise and start putting a couple of page-indexes into the Recipe article. Plus whatever else seems necessary to me. So, Supten, I think that we can both develop Recipe and freeze CZ:Recipes. Hayford Peirce 10:47, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Great! Hopefully within a couple of days the proposal will look like a well formed proposal. Supten Sarbadhikari 21:17, 3 March 2008 (CST)

• Well, I don't see anything new here as of March 6th -- so go ahead to the next step, I guess. I was all ready to start seriously adding stuff to the Recipe article but I'll hold off for a while.... Hayford Peirce 21:57, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I hate to jump in here late, but I really hadn't been paying attention until I saw the recipe article take off. I think Jitse is bringing up important points. For this proposal, I think it is critical that we develop CZ:Recipes - as I understand it, this page is what will set the guidelines for how recipes should be constructed on CZ. That's the crux of this proposal right? We're proposing to 1) adopt a recipe subpage, 2)develop a recipe catalog (recipe), and outline the standards with how this should be handled {CZ:Recipes). I recognize that coming up with policy is less fun that simply writing an article, but if we don't do it there will be no standardization which I think is important. --Todd Coles 22:28, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, you're completely right, of course. On the other hand, look at the date of the last entry above: March 6th. I didn't want to grow a long white beard and then die of old age while I waited for something to be done. If I hadn't just started adding recipes and stuff to the Recipes article yesterday, do you seriously think anything else would have been accomplished as of this moment? Hayford Peirce 22:58, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

No, and that's why I think it's a great idea that you did - definitely brought focus on to some of the issues we need to work out before we "formalize" this whole thing. I know things move at a snails pace around here, that's why I'm seeing what I can do to jump start it. --Todd Coles 23:08, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Just to update this page, recipe has been expanded, CZ:Recipe has been developed to the point where I think we can, at the least, push forward with the subpage, and we have a recipe template that is very near completion. --Todd Coles 20:23, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks to Todd and Hayford for moving the proposal in the right direction. I have been busy with the new Editorial Council s/election. However, the way the whole thing stands, I hope to drive it successfully past the Editorial Council in the first week of April itself (I had already set the date for the next step at April 03, 2008). Supten Sarbadhikari 23:08, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Co-sponsors needed

I have not read all of the unfolding discussion above, but I have looked closely at the Recipes subpage which has apparently resulted from it and I wish to sign on as a co-sponsor of the proposal that this be added as a Subpage type. (Lordie, I hope type is the right word there, so this doesn't touch off more discussion like the above! ;-) Roger Lohmann 09:30, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} | {{Proposal assignment}} | {{Proposals navigation}}

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active | Finished | Declined Approval and Feedback: Active | Finished | Declined Eduzendium: Active | Finished | Declined Recruitment: Active | Finished | Declined Constabulary: Active | Finished | Declined Executive: Active | Finished | Declined Technical: Active | Finished | Declined PR: Active | Finished | Declined Ad hoc management: Active | Finished | Declined